INCREASED TELEPHONE CHARGES.

Otaki Mail, 23 April 1923, Page 4

INCREASED TELEPHONE CHARGES.

EXPLANATION I3Y DEPARTMENTAL OFFICER:

A meeting under the aupices of the Levin Chamber of Commerce was held in the Council Chambers, ou Friday uiurning to hear an explanation or the proposed increased telephone charges, made by Mr A. T. Markman, AssistantSecretary to the Post and Telegraph Department. Mr J. \V. Rimxner, president of the Chamber, occupied the chair, and there was a gathering of about 40 business men, and other subscribers.

Mr Markman explained that it had . not been his intention to visit Levin. | | He had, however, been persuaded by j Mr l.inklater, the member for the dis-1 trict, to come, and would do all in his power to place the facts before the j Chamber. Briefly put the facts were j that the telephone branch of the ser- j vice showed a loss, after allowing in- I terest on capital cost, of something J like £173,000 per annum, and the in- i creased rates are expected to make up J that amount, Levin subscribers, in i common with those of other localities, were being called upon to assist in malting up the shortage. At the pres- j ent. time the rate for a business conI nection within half a mite of the exchange was £6 per annum, with an 'increased rate according• to distance j outside that radius. For private resiI dences the charge is the same with the same extra mileage rate. For some considerable time the Department has been considering the question of Improving the method of charging. ' In Levin, for example, there will be a "base rate area" of approximately 12 square miles, or with a radius of approximately H square miles. Over j this area a Hat rate will lie charged

so that a, business man whose premises are on the extreme of the U mile

limit will pay exactly the same charge as. the man who is situated right against the Exchange. The following table was submitted fo show how the new charges would affect subscribers: BUSINESS. RESIDENTIAL. Dist. Present. Proposed. Present. Pro. £ s d £ & d £ s d £ s d i,. m . 6 ii 0 90 0 6 0 0 60 0 :;-!„. 615 0 00 0 6 0 0 60 0 ~,, 7pi n f) (i li 6 0 0 60 0 ~ U 1 S • 6 ! 612 6G 0 0 |i.,„. Bln 0H 0 0 7 5 0 60 0

"li will therefore be seen," the speaker continued, "that in many eases a reduction will be made because 'i large number of subscribers living li miles and more from the exchange will pay less than they do at present. Two-party lines to residences will pay the same rate as previously, namely ti 10s per subscriber, whilst' in the rase of two-parly business lines there will be an increase of from G 5 10s to C 6. Four-party residence lines will be reduced from £'i to £3 10s per subscriber.

Mr Dempsey said that it wa.s the usual thing in business whether private or Departmental that when an increase iii rates was proposed, a reason for such should be given. In this rase they were given to understand that as Departmental business grew there would be still greater increases. Mr Markham said that this was not so. As Mr Massey and the PostmasterGeneral had stated, as soon as the Department found that it could be done, charges would be reduced. Mr Dempsey: "I understand from a v, 'kiel issued by Ihe Canterbury Progress League that the Department bs a whole is paying already." Mr Markman said thai he had not -one into the statements ot the Canterbury Progress League seriously. but would do so as soon as possible, and had no doubt that they would find that the figures would really give a different result. The figures quoted had been compiled by his Department, and how the Canterbury people drew their conclusions from them he could not say. He could say pretty confidently however, that an examination of the matter would pul a different complexinn on the Progress League's statement.

Mr Kerslake said that anything could he proved from figures. One point, however, that the Canterbury Progress League made was the fact that toll charges were not credited to the Telephone Branch, but to the Telegraph Branch, which seemed to call for some explanation. Mr Markman said that the Branches were so closely connected that it was difficult to keep these separate. On the face of it it certainly seemed that this money should go to the Telephone Department but there were very good reasons for not doing this. He did not. wish to say too much about, this matter until the Progress League's pamphlet had been fully considered.

Tn answer to Mr Parker he said that up to a few- years aero the statements brought out by the Department showed that it \va=. paying handsomely. Tn ordinary business, however, rent, and interest were always charged against production. in the Department, this had not been done. Now it was decided to do so. A share of the interest on all buildings and cost of erection of lines would he. charged against the Telephone Department. Recently through economy in running the Postal business there had been a decrease in postage. Some people might ask why there should be a reduction on postage and an increase in telephone charges. The explanation was that every department of the postal business was run separately and had to pav its way. Mr D. \V. Matheson said he did not think that any business man could disagree with the Postal authorities- intention to make the department pay. It. seemed to him. however, that the scheme had put forward by the Department as a feeler and it could not wonder that business men were against it. If information such as was. now being driven had been given at •lie time of ihe first anouncement, there would not have been so much opposition. Mr Markman said all these branches were interwoven, would it not be better to run them all together as they all dealt with communications If th: : - wae dons they could do without increasing charges

in one department whilst making reductions in another. He thought the Department should lay all its cards on the table so as to let business men know just how things were. Take the ment by competent business men, case put forward by the Canterbury Progress League. There was a statechecked by a public accountant, and containing a serious analysis of the Department's figures. Surely it was only a waste of time on the pan of the Department to send Mr Markman round if he was not in a. position to meet this criticism.

Mr Markman safd that the statement sent out by the Minister was pretty clear. It would have been very difficult for the Minister to give all these explanations to the public, but it was considered better to go round as was being done. From a Departmental point of view it would have been much easier, to have put the scheme into operation without any explanation. As for the different Departments, the Telegraph Department, last year showed a loss of 0356,000, and the Telephone Department £73.000. The Department, however, claimed that £IOO.000 of this amount charged against the Telegraph Department, should rightly have been charged to the Telephone Department, making the loss £173,000.

Mr Maliheson: "It seems rather strange that Telegraph rates should have been reduced if the Department does not pay."

Mr Markman explained that when the Department increased its rates it knew that business men would not send as many telegrams or letters as if the rates were lower but at the time it was necessary, as instead of a loss as at present on the Telegraph Department of £246.000 [leaving out the £IOO,OOO which should be charged to the telephone account 1 there would have been a loss of about. £500,000, and instead of a profit of £300.000 on the Postal Department there would have been a loss of £750.000. Every country' had increased rates, and it was much better to do so than go to the ratepayer to supply the deficiency. Now as soon as business appeared to warrant it. a reduction was being made. Considerable discussion took place as to the convenience of the telephone. the meeting generally admitting that the sendee w'as a great aid to business.

In moving a hearty vote of thanks to Mr Markman for his full and frank explanation. Mr Kerslake said the Chamber should withhold an opinion on the matter unfTl it saw the Department's reply to the Canterbury Progress League's statement.

Mr Marheson seconded the motion and said Mr Markman had dealt with the matter as a business man and the Chamber appreciated his willingness to explain the position. The motion was carried by acclamation.